2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was charged with violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Act No. 68346) at the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “traffic accident case”), and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million by this court as the High Court Decision No. 2015 on February 21, 2013, but appealed, and the appeal was dismissed by this court as the Supreme Court No. 2013No499 on May 31, 2013. The judgment became final and conclusive as the judgment dismissing the appeal by Supreme Court Decision No. 2013Do7354 on October 11, 2013.

In addition, on the ground that the Plaintiff testified B and C in the proceedings of a traffic accident case, was not perjury, the Plaintiff was indicted for an offense of false accusation in 2012 type No. 18072 at the Gwangju District Prosecutor’s Office, and is still pending in the trial as this Court Order No. 2012 type No. 1385 (hereinafter “non-prosecution case”).

B. On March 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the “documents pertaining to the destruction of seized Megnet cards, which are evidence of a traffic accident case (hereinafter “the instant information”).

C. On March 18, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure on the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of information, the instant information constitutes “in-house documents of investigative agencies” under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “instant guidelines”) as it falls under “in-house documents of investigative agencies” established pursuant to Article 9 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). Thus, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff claimed disclosure of the information of this case for the investigation of the non-disclosure of the case, and the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful as infringing the plaintiff's right to know even though the information of this case does not correspond to the

B. The Defendant’s instant information is asserted by the investigative agency.